Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
This scrutiny on political aides like this.... do you recall any other Presidential elections where the media is vetting the campaign staff? The candidates themselves, sure. But their staffers?
2012 when people went after Gruber. 2008 when they went after Axelrod, Gibbs*, Dunn, Hildebrand, and Plouffe.
*Admittedly his job was to tank, in the MMO sense.
Out of curiosity what are requirements to vote in USA? You have to be national but what are requirements for that?
Well, that depends on the State and municipality. There are a lot more elections than the Presidential one, and that is the only time the FEC really matters; because the US is resistant to any form of national identification.
Of course it already has it, via SSNs and draft registration, but a lot of people like to pretend otherwise.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/27 10:39:03
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
tneva82 wrote: Out of curiosity what are requirements to vote in USA? You have to be national but what are requirements for that?
The big ones are:
You must be a US citizen, aged 18
You must register to vote a single time - you can often do this the same day as the election, but it depends on your state. You need to be a resident of that state to vote, and you must vote in a specific location. If you cannot be physically present for whatever reason, you can vote via absentee ballot. If you move permanently, you have to update your voter registration.
The US has 2 major political parties. You do not have to pick one of those 2, but you usually cannot participate in the primary elections unless you are a member of that party (since it's the party picking a candidate to run in a later general election). The general election is open to all registered voters.
Convicted felons lose the right to vote but they can have sometimes have it reinstated.
Some states require very specific ID to vote. This is a topic that is often discussed heatedly and so let's just say the rationale for this is disputed, and leave it at that.
I think that's it, right?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/27 08:18:51
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote: The US has 2 major political parties. You do not have to pick one of those 2, but you usually cannot participate in the primary elections unless you are a member of that party (since it's the party picking a candidate to run in a later general election).
Note that this varies by state and potentially by party. NC, for example, allows people who are registered as independent to choose which party's ballot they want each time they vote. And there is no law requiring parties to use any particular primary system, if a party decides "screw this voting thing, we're nominating these people" then that's who will be on the ballot in the general election. This is why in some states there are no primary elections at all and the state's delegates to the national convention are selected in caucuses.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Eric Trump, listing off reasons his father is running for president, said in an interview this week that one of the motivations was the renaming of the White House Christmas tree to the “holiday tree.”
The tree placed on the White House lawn during the holiday season is still called the National Christmas Tree.
“He opens up the paper each morning and sees our nation’s leaders giving a hundred billion dollars to Iran, or he opens the paper and some new school district has just eliminated the ability for its students to say the pledge of allegiance, or some fire department in some town is ordered by the mayor to no longer fly the American flag on the back of a fire truck,” Trump told James Robison in an interview posted this week.
“Or he sees the tree on the White House lawn has been renamed ‘holiday tree’ instead of ‘Christmas tree,’” continued Trump. “I could go on and on for hours. Those are the very things that made my father run, and those are the very things he cares about.”
Chain emails that began when President Obama took office falsely claimed that tree had been renamed. A tree on Capitol Hill was briefly called a “holiday tree” in the ’90s, but the name was changed in 2005 at the direction of then-Speaker Dennis Hastert.
.. what was that line about uneducated voters again ?
TBF I guess if he just came out and said he was running to make a ton of money off of suckers it might not go down well.
... then again ....
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
If you have a green card the FEC considers you to be a US national.
And my argument is that standard is too stringent. There are lots of people who live, legally, for long periods of time in the US without ever getting a green card; they should be allowed to vote.
When I was in college I could not/did not vote in any local elections as I was already registered in my home state and votes in the presidential election via absentee ballot from my home state.
I did my undergrad in Minnesota, and voted there in my first semester; mostly because a pretty girl dragged me to the polls. I was already on the rolls for that precinct despite being a resident of Illinois. In effect I was simultaneously a resident of Minnesota and Illinois. This follows as I had already lived in Minnesota for 3 months.
I'm not familiar with how college students are allowed to vote when they attend out of state schools. If someone has a current DL and official residence in one state I personally don't have a problem with that person only being allowed to vote in that state even if they attend school in another. Lots of people cross state lines to go to work and pay taxes in two states and I think it's best for those people to be limited to one ballot in one state as well. One person = one vote. There's no federal voter registry and I don't think any of the states cross check their voter rolls against the other 49 states frequently if at all so there's little stopping people from voting in multiple states but I personally don't think that's good for the system.
There is nothing wrong with a person casting votes in multiple State or local elections, they are still "one vote", though given the low rate of voter turnout I can't imagine that happens very often. Really the only problem arises in Presidential elections, a Federal voter registry would address that to some extent but enforcing it creates problems. Say, for example, I work in the town next to the one I live in and that polling place is the most convenient for me; the staff (mostly volunteers) would have to check my name against the Federal registry, State registry, and local registry in order to determine what votes I was allowed to cast. That's a lot of work for a person who has to do it thousands of times and isn't being paid. And before considering that a person who works in a given locale might be considered a constituent even if they don't live there, as they might be directly impacted by political decisions in that place; especially if they own a business.
Lawful permanent residents should be able to be considered US nationals by the FEC in regards to being able to donate to campaigns/politicians.
(20) The term “lawfully admitted for permanent residence” means the status of having been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such status not having changed.
In regards to elections if they have a valid residence in state and valid ID such as a DL they can probably get on the state voter rolls but the exact requirements for registration can vary by state.
Since state voter rolls generally don't get cross checked against each other it wouldn't be hard to get on multiple rolls. I've lived in multiple states and I'm probably still on the rolls in some states I don't live in anymore. I'm not aware of states that let you register to vote without having a residence in state and/or valid state ID. I have relatives that lived in NJ and worked in NYC paid state income taxes in both states but could only register to vote in NJ.
I think you can't be too loose with your definition of constituent. Just because a politician can make a decision that affects you doesn't make you one of their constituents. A senator or congressperson from California could cast the deciding vote on federal legislation that has a large impact on me but that doesn't mean I should be allowed to vote in statewide elections in California. Using business ties as the basis for voter eligibility is a slippery slope. If owning a business in a state you don't live in qualifies you to vote in that state what about working in that state or owning a business that does business in that state? I understand your desire to give small businesses a vice in their state governance but that criteria is also going to let interstate and international corporations as well trade organizations, lobbies and unions get more involved in elections too and we already have too much corporate money and influence in our political process thanks to SCotUS throwing away our campaign finance laws.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/27 11:18:22
I... I just.... Words fail me. This man has no honour.
Looking for a club in Brisbane, Australia? Come and enjoy a game and a beer at Pubhammer, our friendly club in a pub at the Junction pub in Annerley (opposite Ace Comics), Sunday nights from 6:30. All brisbanites welcome, don't wait, check out our Club Page on Facebook group for details or to organize a game. We play all sorts of board and war games, so hit us up if you're interested.
Pubhammer is Moving! Starting from the 25th of May we'll be gaming at The Junction pub (AKA The Muddy Farmer), opposite Ace Comics & Games in Annerley! Still Sunday nights from 6:30 in the Function room Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else!
I... I just.... Words fail me. This man has no honour.
To paraphrase Freud, some times a douchebag is just a douchebag. He genuinely can't help himself. The only thing more pathetic are the slavering crowds that follow him like a messiah.
Prestor Jon wrote: I'm not aware of states that let you register to vote without having a residence in state and/or valid state ID. I have relatives that lived in NJ and worked in NYC paid state income taxes in both states but could only register to vote in NJ.
Minnesota did it in 2004 and, in my opinion, your relatives were getting screwed.
I think you can't be too loose with your definition of constituent. Just because a politician can make a decision that affects you doesn't make you one of their constituents.
It does if that person can vote for him, which many people can. Even in-State college students can vote for people out of their home Congressional district, which is why a lot of townies get upset.
A senator or congressperson from California could cast the deciding vote on federal legislation that has a large impact on me but that doesn't mean I should be allowed to vote in statewide elections in California.
Do you have any claim to residency in California?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Can we maybe make a separate thread for this whole residency/foreign national/who can vote discussion? You two are making my head spin.
Anyway, I have to say that above tweet from Trump, while horrifying, is just one more log on the bonfire that can't be put out at this point. We were all hoping he was more of a Jenga tower, and this it would eventually come crashing down when one too many blocks were pulled out, but he's really a bonfire at this point.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
I... I just.... Words fail me. This man has no honour.
I'm confused... What does that have to do with anything he's been saying, and how will that get african americans to vote Trump? This seems like an even dumber repeat of his "I like tacos, hispanics should like me" ad.
I... I just.... Words fail me. This man has no honour.
I'm confused... What does that have to do with anything he's been saying, and how will that get african americans to vote Trump? This seems like an even dumber repeat of his "I like tacos, hispanics should like me" ad.
I could be wrong, but is he raising this incident as what will happen if they don't vote Trump? African Americans will VOTE TRUMP or else they will be shot, as he is a strong and really great leader. Only those second amendment guys can do anything about it if they don't. [/sarcasm] [/butnotreally]
In other news, some Trump supporters are very dumb and fail to see the irony in their own behaviour and expressed "American Values".
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/28 01:56:57
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
I... I just.... Words fail me. This man has no honour.
I'm confused... What does that have to do with anything he's been saying, and how will that get african americans to vote Trump? This seems like an even dumber repeat of his "I like tacos, hispanics should like me" ad.
I think it's supposed to be some kind of reference to the talking point that cities like Chicago that have had their government controlled by Democrats for decades are still beset with severe problems that hurt their black and minority residents so those ethnic groups should vote Republican/vote for Trump instead of more Democrats like Hillary. It's not particularly clear and that tweet is still deplorable, tone deaf and shows a severe lack of decorum and empathy.
Prestor Jon wrote: that tweet is still deplorable, tone deaf and shows a severe lack of decorum and empathy.
It's almost... Trumpian.
Spoiler:
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
I... I just.... Words fail me. This man has no honour.
I'm confused... What does that have to do with anything he's been saying, and how will that get african americans to vote Trump? This seems like an even dumber repeat of his "I like tacos, hispanics should like me" ad.
I think it's supposed to be some kind of reference to the talking point that cities like Chicago that have had their government controlled by Democrats for decades are still beset with severe problems that hurt their black and minority residents so those ethnic groups should vote Republican/vote for Trump instead of more Democrats like Hillary. It's not particularly clear and that tweet is still deplorable, tone deaf and shows a severe lack of decorum and empathy.
That's the only thing that makes sense to me, but it is Trump, so there may not be any sense to be made from it in the first place.
I... I just.... Words fail me. This man has no honour.
I'm confused... What does that have to do with anything he's been saying, and how will that get african americans to vote Trump? This seems like an even dumber repeat of his "I like tacos, hispanics should like me" ad.
I could be wrong, but is he raising this incident as what will happen if they don't vote Trump?
African Americans will VOTE TRUMP or else they will be shot, as he is a strong and really great leader. Only those second amendment guys can do anything about it if they don't.
[/sarcasm] [/butnotreally]
In other news, some Trump supporters are very dumb and fail to see the irony in their own behaviour and expressed "American Values".
Video reminds me of the Tea Party rallies espousing no to Obamacare and "federal government hands of my medical coverage" when the interviewees were Medicare recipients. Clueless.
You can't characterise all Trumpiteers as stupid because of a few examples, and of course it also doesn't mean there aren't stupid Clinton supporters. That said, he managed to pick a number of people who clearly have no awareness of how contradictory their personal views are themselves and/or with reality.
Kilkrazy wrote: You can't characterise all Trumpiteers as stupid because of a few examples, and of course it also doesn't mean there aren't stupid Clinton supporters. That said, he managed to pick a number of people who clearly have no awareness of how contradictory their personal views are themselves and/or with reality.
I'm not a fan of generalization of anything or anybodybut they're(Trumpeteers) casting their support behind a reality TV show host that makes comments so incredibly stupid...and there is no other word to describe the absolute drivel that spews daily from his mouth.....that my response is almost Pavlovian. When you see something that walks like a duck, talks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
Prestor Jon wrote: Does allowing billionaires to spend uncapped amounts of money making political donations create a corrupted system that encourages politicians to court the favor of the super rich few rather than the approval of regular people that make up the vast majority of the electorate? Yes. I think you and I would probably both agree with most if not all of Justice Breyer's dissent in the McCutcheon case http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/mccutcheon_sc_opinion.pdf but unfortunately the McCutcheon case was decided in line with Robert's majority opinion which is pretty crazy as he limits the definition with very narrow parameters.
Yep, and this is why I didn't get particularly interested when Bush constructed a legal means to get campaign money from rich Chinese people, and I'm certainly not interested when rich foreigners gave to Clinton's charity.
The real boundaries are class boundaries, not national boundaries. A very rich American person is going to political interests that are much more similar to a very rich Chinese national, than to a working class American.
The Democrats have tried to pass an amendment to the constitution that would overturn the SCofUS campaign finance decisions but unfortunately they've waited until they no longer have enough votes in the Senate to pass it without Republican support which doesn't appear to be forthcoming. I'm a bit disappointed in Sanders that he didn't push the issue harder in his run and do more to get Hillary to take a strong position on it.
Sanders pushed the issue very hard. And then turned around and set up his new structure around a 501(c)(4), precisely so that it can take big donations from individuals. So there's probably a limit to how much we should buy in to anyone's campaign rhetoric.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: It probably isn't possible to limit the amount of money spent on a campaign.
Limit the amount any individual can donate to any campaign during a single election. Ban all non-individual from making a contribution.
This is not only possible, it's very simple to set up.
The reason it doesn't happen it because moneyed interests already have considerable control over major political parties. Those interests are hardly going to support having their own influence culled from the political process.
It gets complex because removing the influence of money is both popularly supported, and something that many people within many political parties genuinely believe in. But typically this results in do nothing reforms like the one you described for the Brexit referendum.
This scrutiny on political aides like this.... do you recall any other Presidential elections where the media is vetting the campaign staff? The candidates themselves, sure. But their staffers?
They've always been vetted. The difference is that this time there's been a goldmine of stuff to find. Because ordinarily politicians will do the vetting themselves, and pick only clean aides. Because ultimately a staffer is just a staffer, and you should always be able to find someone who'll do the job well, so you can cull anyone with a problematic background.
But Trump just isn't very good at the ordinary stuff like picking solid people. And the media, especially in the internet age, loves a faux scandal that can result in someone losing their job...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: In other news, some Trump supporters are very dumb and fail to see the irony in their own behaviour and expressed "American Values".
I've posted this quote from Avik Roy before, but it sums everything up so well;
"One insightful way to think about the nationalist vs. conservative divide is to ponder the case of Asian-Americans. If conservative values are the values of family and hard work, then Asians are the most conservative demographic group in America. They have the highest median incomes ($66,000 vs. U.S. median of $49,800), the highest percentage of college graduates (49% vs. U.S. median of 28%), and the lowest rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births (17% vs. U.S. median of 41%).
And yet, in 2012, Asian-Americans voted for Obama over Mitt Romney by a margin of 49 points. Hispanics, by contrast, “only” voted for Obama by a margin of 44 points.
This is the deficiency—and in many cases, the hypocrisy—of nationalists who appeal to “values voters.” They claim to be celebrating hard work and family, but they make no effort to appeal to immigrants—and non-Christians—who embrace those values in greater proportion than do those whose grandparents were born here. The appeal to “values voters,” in effect, has become a coded appeal to identity politics for white people."
Under closer scrutiny, you can start to see that "American values" are something that traditional Republican voters like to talk about, but not something they actually like to do, quote from Noahpinion;
"But as Charles Murray and many others have documented, working-class white America professes more traditional values, but doesn't practice them. On the whole, working-class whites are no longer going to church, are no longer getting married (or staying married), and are having kids out of wedlock - in other words, traditional family values are dying among the very people who were most receptive to social conservatives' message."
I think it should be pretty clear that "traditional values" were never actually about actually about people living up to traditional family values like taking the wife and kids to church every Sunday. It was just a way of expressing other ideas, angst and frustration about a changing world, about their decline in economic and social status.
This would be why minorities who actually hold socially conservative values were never very receptive to this - they didn't feel that angst because their own economic position wasn't in decline, and because they were the ones actually benefiting from the shift away from white dominated power structures.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/08/29 03:06:51
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
That's because "traditional values" is right up there in the code words as "traditional white Christian values". Same for "family values". The GOP has repeatedly failed to embrace minorities and immigrants on a national level, to its detriment. In the continuous shift of American culture, they have decided to play anchor and be dragged along by force rather than play engine and tap into the commonalities of cultures that value family stability, hard work, and education. Of course, the GOP has also embraced policies that attack intellectualism and public education, and eroded the job, wage, and tax base to benefit their donor class, so it's not all coincidence.
jmurph wrote: That's because "traditional values" is right up there in the code words as "traditional white Christian values". Same for "family values". The GOP has repeatedly failed to embrace minorities and immigrants on a national level, to its detriment.
All of this is true.
On the GOP/minority front, they're really, really dumb at how they've handled the Latino vote. In general, Latinos are conservative Catholics that would vote Republican. You know, if every other sentence from Republican's lately wasn't "Deport them!".
They tend to not vote for people that want their families deported.
I also favor amnesty, in a limited form. Yes, you can stay, but you have to apply for citizenship and pay taxes. Oh, you committed a felony? GTFO.
From your link, Whembly. His immigration stance:
Spoiler:
THRUSH: But you have been pretty--I was listening to an interview that you gave with Reason magazine in, I guess, late last year, in which you just said he--flat out, you just said he is a racist. He represents a racist strand in American politics. Do you think that's still true? MR. JOHNSON: Look, I come from New Mexico. Fifty percent of New Mexico population is Hispanic. We're one of four states in the country that is minority-majority, Native American, Hispanic. The things that he is saying relative to the borders are absolutely incendiary and they are wrong. They are just flat wrong. And in the 2012 cycle, it was my voice out there saying, look, building a fence across the border is--really, it's not a good idea. There's no common sense associated with building a fence across the border, and the deportation of 11 million illegal immigrants? This, really, at the basis of that belief is just a misunderstanding of what that really represents. That represents a lot of hard-working people that can't get across the border to legally work, so they cross illegally, something that you would probably do if the situation was reversed, to look after your family. THRUSH: Well, he described these people as, you know-- MR. JOHNSON: --murderers and rapists-- THRUSH: Right. MR. JOHNSON: --when, in fact, statistically, they commit far less crime than U.S. citizens. Why wouldn't they commit far less crime? And they are absolutely the cream of the crop when it comes to workers. Let's make it as easy as possible. Let's look across the border-- THRUSH: I interviewed Jeff Sessions about--who claimed ignorance of his own state's law. Let's look at what happened in Alabama to the farmers, when they cracked down on immigration before it was rolled back by the Justice Department. They saw a mass exodus of their farm workers. They couldn't get anybody to replace them to do those jobs. MR. JOHNSON: Well, that's exactly the case. They're not taking jobs that U.S. citizens want, and it's not an issue of lower pay, unless it's an issue of language. And they're the first ones that recognize that so they--not unlike immigration throughout the history of this country. We are a nation of immigrants, and if the truth be known, don't we need a whole lot of immigrants to be buying homes, and to drive our economy, and to take jobs that U.S. citizens don't want? THRUSH: It's so interesting. New Mexico is next door to Arizona, which is the crucible of quite the opposite opinion, with Jan Brewer and Joe Arpaio. MR. JOHNSON: Well, they made a name for themselves. I'd say they've created a political bogeyman that really doesn't exist. Now, don't get me wrong. There's petty crime that exists around the border--I get it--but it's not heads lying--it's not cut-off heads lying in the desert. I have a big business interest, hotel interest, in Tempe, Arizona, and after Jan Brewer came out on this issue, business just absolutely dried up. THRUSH: Really? MR. JOHNSON: The entire nation boycotted Arizona from holding any of their conventions.
SNIP
MR. JOHNSON: Well, no, I don't think it represents smaller government. I mean, just what he's talking about when it comes to immigration, in a state that's 50 percent Hispanic, are doors not going to be knocked on in New Mexico, my door included? But when they get to my door, gee, I'm white, so--well, but maybe we'd better check your basement or your attic to make sure that you're not harboring any illegal immigrants. I mean, this is really incendiary, and if you're Hispanic, 50 percent of the population of New Mexico is going to be subject to getting their doors knocked on? THRUSH: Do you still think it's racist? I mean MR. JOHNSON: Yes. Absolutely it's racist. When he calls Mexicans murderers and rapists, that is incendiary. That is misinformed. THRUSH: This passion that you have about this, this notion of people coming and knocking on your doors, this unfairness that you view, where does that come from? Is there a formative experience in your life? Was there a book you read? Because it really animates you. MR. JOHNSON: It's living in New Mexico. It's living in New Mexico. It's my friends on the Arizona border, not the New Mexico border because we haven't gone bonkers over this, but it's my friends that are Hispanic, on the Arizona border, that have just resigned themselves to having to carry their papers with them.
SNIP
THRUSH: How about Obama's executive order, which was decried as being a great constitutional violation by the Republicans, Obama's executive order on immigration. Did you consider that to be a violation or did you consider that a reasonable use of targeted executive power? MR. JOHNSON: I saw it as a reasonable use, challenging Congress to action. And an untold story with regard to Obama and immigration is he's broken up 3 million families. He has deported 3 million heads of households that have gone back to Mexico and their families have remained in the United States.
To qualify for DACA, applicants must meet the following major requirements, although meeting them does not guarantee approval:[5]
Came to the United States before 16th birthday Have lived continuously in the United States since 15 June 2007 Were under age 31 on 15 June 2012 (i.e., born after 15 June 1981) Were physically present in the United States on 15 June 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS Had no lawful status on 15 June 2012 Have completed high school or a GED, have been honorably discharged from the armed forces or the Coast Guard, or are enrolled in school Have not been convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanors, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety
In August 2012, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that as many as 1.76 million people could be eligible for DACA. Of those, 28% were under 15 and would have to wait until reaching that age to apply. In addition, roughly 20% did not meet any of the education criteria, but could become eligible by enrolling in a program before submitting their application. 74% of the eligible population was born in Mexico or Central America. Smaller proportions came from Caribbean and South America (11%), Asia (9%), and the rest of the world (6%).[6]
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/29 15:30:10
Heh, maybe it's time to repost that video of a couple of rather smartly dressed Democrats talking about their plans for "amnesty" and "paths to citizenship". I think their names were Reagan and Bush?
(just remarking how things have changed)
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
kronk wrote: I also favor amnesty, in a limited form. Yes, you can stay, but you have to apply for citizenship and pay taxes. Oh, you committed a felony? GTFO.
From your link, Whembly. His immigration stance:
Spoiler:
THRUSH: But you have been pretty--I was listening to an interview that you gave with Reason magazine in, I guess, late last year, in which you just said he--flat out, you just said he is a racist. He represents a racist strand in American politics. Do you think that's still true? MR. JOHNSON: Look, I come from New Mexico. Fifty percent of New Mexico population is Hispanic. We're one of four states in the country that is minority-majority, Native American, Hispanic. The things that he is saying relative to the borders are absolutely incendiary and they are wrong. They are just flat wrong. And in the 2012 cycle, it was my voice out there saying, look, building a fence across the border is--really, it's not a good idea. There's no common sense associated with building a fence across the border, and the deportation of 11 million illegal immigrants? This, really, at the basis of that belief is just a misunderstanding of what that really represents. That represents a lot of hard-working people that can't get across the border to legally work, so they cross illegally, something that you would probably do if the situation was reversed, to look after your family. THRUSH: Well, he described these people as, you know-- MR. JOHNSON: --murderers and rapists-- THRUSH: Right. MR. JOHNSON: --when, in fact, statistically, they commit far less crime than U.S. citizens. Why wouldn't they commit far less crime? And they are absolutely the cream of the crop when it comes to workers. Let's make it as easy as possible. Let's look across the border-- THRUSH: I interviewed Jeff Sessions about--who claimed ignorance of his own state's law. Let's look at what happened in Alabama to the farmers, when they cracked down on immigration before it was rolled back by the Justice Department. They saw a mass exodus of their farm workers. They couldn't get anybody to replace them to do those jobs. MR. JOHNSON: Well, that's exactly the case. They're not taking jobs that U.S. citizens want, and it's not an issue of lower pay, unless it's an issue of language. And they're the first ones that recognize that so they--not unlike immigration throughout the history of this country. We are a nation of immigrants, and if the truth be known, don't we need a whole lot of immigrants to be buying homes, and to drive our economy, and to take jobs that U.S. citizens don't want? THRUSH: It's so interesting. New Mexico is next door to Arizona, which is the crucible of quite the opposite opinion, with Jan Brewer and Joe Arpaio. MR. JOHNSON: Well, they made a name for themselves. I'd say they've created a political bogeyman that really doesn't exist. Now, don't get me wrong. There's petty crime that exists around the border--I get it--but it's not heads lying--it's not cut-off heads lying in the desert. I have a big business interest, hotel interest, in Tempe, Arizona, and after Jan Brewer came out on this issue, business just absolutely dried up. THRUSH: Really? MR. JOHNSON: The entire nation boycotted Arizona from holding any of their conventions.
SNIP
MR. JOHNSON: Well, no, I don't think it represents smaller government. I mean, just what he's talking about when it comes to immigration, in a state that's 50 percent Hispanic, are doors not going to be knocked on in New Mexico, my door included? But when they get to my door, gee, I'm white, so--well, but maybe we'd better check your basement or your attic to make sure that you're not harboring any illegal immigrants. I mean, this is really incendiary, and if you're Hispanic, 50 percent of the population of New Mexico is going to be subject to getting their doors knocked on? THRUSH: Do you still think it's racist? I mean MR. JOHNSON: Yes. Absolutely it's racist. When he calls Mexicans murderers and rapists, that is incendiary. That is misinformed. THRUSH: This passion that you have about this, this notion of people coming and knocking on your doors, this unfairness that you view, where does that come from? Is there a formative experience in your life? Was there a book you read? Because it really animates you. MR. JOHNSON: It's living in New Mexico. It's living in New Mexico. It's my friends on the Arizona border, not the New Mexico border because we haven't gone bonkers over this, but it's my friends that are Hispanic, on the Arizona border, that have just resigned themselves to having to carry their papers with them.
SNIP
THRUSH: How about Obama's executive order, which was decried as being a great constitutional violation by the Republicans, Obama's executive order on immigration. Did you consider that to be a violation or did you consider that a reasonable use of targeted executive power? MR. JOHNSON: I saw it as a reasonable use, challenging Congress to action. And an untold story with regard to Obama and immigration is he's broken up 3 million families. He has deported 3 million heads of households that have gone back to Mexico and their families have remained in the United States.
To qualify for DACA, applicants must meet the following major requirements, although meeting them does not guarantee approval:[5]
Came to the United States before 16th birthday Have lived continuously in the United States since 15 June 2007 Were under age 31 on 15 June 2012 (i.e., born after 15 June 1981) Were physically present in the United States on 15 June 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS Had no lawful status on 15 June 2012 Have completed high school or a GED, have been honorably discharged from the armed forces or the Coast Guard, or are enrolled in school Have not been convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanors, or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety
In August 2012, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that as many as 1.76 million people could be eligible for DACA. Of those, 28% were under 15 and would have to wait until reaching that age to apply. In addition, roughly 20% did not meet any of the education criteria, but could become eligible by enrolling in a program before submitting their application. 74% of the eligible population was born in Mexico or Central America. Smaller proportions came from Caribbean and South America (11%), Asia (9%), and the rest of the world (6%).[6]
I'm actually quite dove-ish, imo, on this topic.
But, let's define amnesty: -if there's no punishment of any sort, then it's amnesty. And, no, paying back taxes and automatically get non-residence status is not a punishment. -touchback is dumb -immediate deportation is also dumb -We need to acknowledge that miniscule amount of illegals do commit violent crimes... and that the VAST majority are simply looking for better life. Champion those who want a better life without encouraging them to flout our laws. So, let's stop painting them with a large brush...eh? (looking at YOU donnie)
-So, here's what I'd advocate for those here illegally, that I don't believe would be considered amnesty: a) Willing to submit to US laws and come out of the shadow. b) Accept the plead-down-misdemeaner of trespassing and any work related fake ID uses (ie, SSN, e-verity, etc) that were used at their employment c) PAY a $1,000 fine (payable in 10 yr increment on your taxes if desired) d) Pay back taxes for the years you've worked (this isn't easy to determine since most migrant workers are paid under the table, but a good faith-effort is expected) e) get/maintain 'non-citizen' legal residence <--- this is key (as they can't vote in federal elections) f) if they desire citizenship, get in line.
In addition to the above, start coming down hard on businesses who hires illegals. Strengthen E-verify, port of entries and yes, build a wall if it makes sense (usually in populated areas). For non-walled borders, improve the border control by adding more manpower/technologies to monitor. That also includes the Coast Guards as well.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/08/29 18:28:43
I am most amused that the party which for a decade has been pushing Voter ID laws intended to restrict minorities from voting, now wants to tap into the minority vote.
YOR DOIN IT RONG!!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/29 21:11:16
Kilkrazy wrote: You can't characterise all Trumpiteers as stupid because of a few examples, and of course it also doesn't mean there aren't stupid Clinton supporters. That said, he managed to pick a number of people who clearly have no awareness of how contradictory their personal views are themselves and/or with reality.
The part the news media won't show you is that they interview something like a 100+ people and cherry pick the ones that fit their narrative. That is with all News media not just one side or the other.
Twinkle, Twinkle little star.
I ran over your Wave Serpents with my car.
Come along and play Warmachine, 40k, boardgames or anything else! 
